Grammar schools reproduce the class system as the exams they require are biased towards middle-class people, as with all most aspects of the education system. In the tripartite system, only a quarter of students were from working-class backgrounds. This leads to an even bigger gap of attainment between the working-classes and middle-classes. It's better for students to mix with people of different backgrounds from an early age - it produces a more accepting and socially aware society. Also, people who don't get into grammar schools are made to feel like failures and the other schools deteriorate as a result of this and the removal of the most able/privileged.

(Original post by creak)
Labour don't make that claim though, do they. No one does.

As an aside, could any of the pro-grammar lobby in here show that the grammar system has improved social mobility in those areas of the UK that still have state-funded grammar schools, compared to the areas that don't?

A report by LSE concluded that the abolition of grammar schools had had an impact on reducing opportunities here.

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
Grammar schools reproduce the class system as the exams they require are biased towards middle-class people, as with all most aspects of the education system. In the tripartite system, only a quarter of students were from working-class backgrounds. This leads to an even bigger gap of attainment between the working-classes and middle-classes. It's better for students to mix with people of different backgrounds from an early age - it produces a more accepting and socially aware society. Also, people who don't get into grammar schools are made to feel like failures and the other schools deteriorate as a result of this and the removal of the most able/privileged.

I don't believe pupils who don't get in are "made to feel like failures". Who are making them feel this way? Do you have any statistics to prove that it produces a more accepting and socially aware society? Or are you just guessing?

Lol dude, i was just doing what righties say with regards to immigrants: "If you don't like this country how it is, you can leave" It's teh humah!

I would have agreed with you telling me to leave if I had chosen to come to this country knowing a system I didn't like was in place. The whole policy is ridiculous. Instead of giving the children a better education through the use of grammar schools, smaller classes, and getting rid of bad children, they are going to just leave the schools as they are and simply award the children what they could get if they had recieved a proper education. Why don't we just do away with any non-private schools and give them all A's because afterall that is what they would have got had they had the opportunity to attend a good school. If, as the government espouses, it isn't down to genes and parenting why don't we just give everyone a flat B, because that is what everyone is capable of getting if we are all equal and in an equal situation.

Of course, to enable a greater degree of social mobility, Labour could look at why state schooling fails so many (e.g. lack of encouraging languages; poorer teaching; less resources; bigger class sizes; less emphasis on extra-curriculars, &c.). Educational opportunities don't begin at University; they start from primary school and beyond. If more of the population actually had a solid education before University then such ridiculous proposals wouldn't need to be made.

As such, this will antagonise the middle classes because they're essentially discriminated against. Furthermore, it'll irritate those who have attended appalling state schools (like myself) who have worked extremely hard to achieve their grades.

I'm far more in support of, say, Cambridge's and York's (as well as any other Universities that have them...) access scheme, where academic potential (as well as current academic achievement) is assessed in terms of the context in which it was achieved. Although, in an ideal world, with improved education for all, this wouldn't be needed either.

(Original post by SpiritedAway)
I think this is exactly what it is saying. I know Leeds Uni have a similar programme at the moment where students of surrounding schools who come from low-income families can sign up to so that their offers are up to 2 grades less. I am not entirely sure what it entails, I just know a friend of mine sent in an essay (which she had a couple of months to write) - nothing academic - then her offer for radiography went from BCC to DDD.

I, personally, think it is totally unfair. Especially on all those students who actually work for their grades! Plus, these kids that get a headstart, probably won't get through uni (I realise this might not be the case, but if they can't get in without the grades, they will struggle), and then what if they are not allowed to go back or drop -out? They've wasted a spot which a hard-working student could have had.

You'ree basically assuming that an ABB student is incapable of getting AAA. You do realise if you put most ABB state school students in a top private school they'd come out with AAA, and vice versa with private school students. Why do you assume that AAA people from private school are all clever, when in fact they might have IQ 115 and just be pressured from school/parents. While ABB students might have IQ 145 but be sidetracked by bad influences and bad teaching. And why can the private schooler have an easy ride paid for by daddy, while the state schooler has to work their socks off to get to the same spot, even though they might be more capable?

(Original post by Marsha2112)
You know what, why is this wrong?
What's wrong is that if private school students are spoonfed to get 3As that's fine, but a clever kid from a crap state school has to work their ass off to get 3As. Now isn't that double standards? If state school students worked the same amount as private schoolers, they'd probably get about 2 grades lower. If you put 100 private schoolers into a crap state school, half of them would fail instantly. So if they'd been born to someone else, they wouldn't have had a chance to go to a top uni just because of their school. Why can private school people be spoonfed and have good teaching, while a state school person has to put up with loud classes, bad teachers and makee the time up on their own? That's truly unfair, don't you think.

Not really, because even private school kids have to work hard to get an A, and the loud classes thing is rare once at A-level because as a rule of thumb, it's the kids who actually want to be there, that are there.

(Original post by Marsha2112)
You'ree basically assuming that an ABB student is incapable of getting AAA. You do realise if you put most ABB state school students in a top private school they'd come out with AAA, and vice versa with private school students. Why do you assume that AAA people from private school are all clever, when in fact they might have IQ 115 and just be pressured from school/parents. While ABB students might have IQ 145 but be sidetracked by bad influences and bad teaching. And why can the private schooler have an easy ride paid for by daddy, while the state schooler has to work their socks off to get to the same spot, even though they might be more capable?

Ah. So you think most people with AAA from a private school wouldn't have got that at a state school? How unfair of you.

(Original post by Elipsis)
I would have agreed with you telling me to leave if I had chosen to come to this country knowing a system I didn't like was in place. The whole policy is ridiculous. Instead of giving the children a better education through the use of grammar schools, smaller classes, and getting rid of bad children, they are going to just leave the schools as they are and simply award the children what they could get if they had recieved a proper education. Why don't we just do away with any non-private schools and give them all A's because afterall that is what they would have got had they had the opportunity to attend a good school. If, as the government espouses, it isn't down to genes and parenting why don't we just give everyone a flat B, because that is what everyone is capable of getting if we are all equal and in an equal situation.

Yeah well i agree with you, because as said before, i have a Tory education policy. Well, except two things:

a) It makes no difference whether or not you "came here": the 'immigrants' who want change, say, in the form of radical islam, were born here themselves
b) Getting "rid" of the bad children isn't going to help the country; they have to be fixed, through carrot or stick, if this country is to have a future.

I don't believe pupils who don't get in are "made to feel like failures". Who are making them feel this way? Do you have any statistics to prove that it produces a more accepting and socially aware society? Or are you just guessing?

Grammar school are only good for those who are in them. Some study showed that pupils who passed just by the borderline were approx. 1 year ahead than if they'd gone to a comprehensive. Which is pretty worrying that average students in a grammar will have a good start, but one virtually the same that slipped on 2 marks will be disadvantaged in a school full of thick/loud kids. That's what's unfair.

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
Everyone should be equal. It's easy for people to say "That's just the way it is.", but I doubt you would be saying that if you were disadvantaged in every aspect of society, and you had to work harder than other people born into a richer family to get to where they started from.

Everyone should not be equal. If I hypothetically cba with anything and cba to get a job, and I enjoy vandalising things, I don't deserve as much money as someone who can be arsed to get a job and work.
I do have to work harder, I am not rich and I don't go to a private or grammar school. That is just the way things are. You can't take money away from people who happen to have parents who have succeeded with money, or give more to people who parents haven't.

(Original post by Jonty99)
Ah. So you think most people with AAA from a private school wouldn't have got that at a state school? How unfair of you.

No, they probably wouldn't. I know a few people that aren't even that clever, they're just pressurised to work/achieve from all around. If I'd gone to a private school where homework was compulsory and done in school I could have got much better GCSEs, whereas in my school we had good teaching but no-one was motivated to revise or do homework so the atmosphere was always lax.

(Original post by Marsha2112)
You know what, why is this wrong?
What's wrong is that if private school students are spoonfed to get 3As that's fine, but a clever kid from a crap state school has to work their ass off to get 3As. Now isn't that double standards? If state school students worked the same amount as private schoolers, they'd probably get about 2 grades lower. If you put 100 private schoolers into a crap state school, half of them would fail instantly. So if they'd been born to someone else, they wouldn't have had a chance to go to a top uni just because of their school. Why can private school people be spoonfed and have good teaching, while a state school person has to put up with loud classes, bad teachers and makee the time up on their own? That's truly unfair, don't you think.

That's just stupid. Now you're making the generalisation that private school students are spoonfed and the clever kids from a crap state school has to work their ass off! That's not true! Sure there may be some occasions that this is true, but it isn't fair to say it happens VERY time.

And wtf?

state school students worked the same amount as private schoolers, they'd probably get about 2 grades lower.

Who are you to say that? I mean, are you trying to say private schoolers don't work as hard? This is so ill-informed, I don't know where to go with it.

If you put 100 private schoolers into a crap state school, half of them would fail instantly.

I'm sorry, but what makes you say that? I mean, you do know that some private schools aren't worth their money right?

And tbh, on your last point - it is unfair! That's life! And don't you say I'm not being fair because I'm living proof of it! But tbh, automatic grade inflation isn't going to solve anything. Tbh like you said, in general, a state school has loud classes, bad teachers etc. Well why don't we improve on those things?

(Original post by Marsha2112)
Grammar school are only good for those who are in them. Some study showed that pupils who passed just by the borderline were approx. 1 year ahead than if they'd gone to a comprehensive. Which is pretty worrying that average students in a grammar will have a good start, but one virtually the same that slipped on 2 marks will be disadvantaged in a school full of thick/loud kids. That's what's unfair.

Yes, that is a problem, as you say. but I still think it is better than the current system. The pupil who just slipped by a couple of marks could have opportunities to transfer to the grammar after SAT/GCSE etc.

And anyway, that's just a less bad version of what currently happens! Really smart people who are forced to go to a rubbish comprehensive. At least in the grammar school system, you are responsible for what school you can go to, not your parents' income.

And I completely dispute the fact they are only good for those who are in them. The system is good in general. One size does not fit all.

I don't believe pupils who don't get in are "made to feel like failures". Who are making them feel this way? Do you have any statistics to prove that it produces a more accepting and socially aware society? Or are you just guessing?

It's common sense really. If middle-class people and working-class people only mix on a level of working-class people serving middle-class people, it doesn't create a harmonious society. People are bound to get bitter - and rightly so. And actually, people who didn't get into grammar schools were made to feel like failures. Grammar schools improve the opportunities of their pupils at everyone else's expenses. If you talk to anyone who went to a secondary modern, you will probably get a similar response. My point about the class divide still stands anyway - it's hardly something that should be pushed to one side either. If that was the only problem with grammar schools, I'd still be against them.

(Original post by Marsha2112)
No, they probably wouldn't. I know a few people that aren't even that clever, they're just pressurised to work/achieve from all around. If I'd gone to a private school where homework was compulsory and done in school I could have got much better GCSEs, whereas in my school we had good teaching but no-one was motivated to revise or do homework so the atmosphere was always lax.

HAHAHa. You're just shooting yourself in the foot there. The people you speak of shouldn't have been so lazy! That is THEIR fault. They can't try to push the blame onto their backgrounds because they couldn't be bothered to revise or do homework.

(Original post by im so academic)
That's just stupid. Now you're making the generalisation that private school students are spoonfed and the clever kids from a crap state school has to work their ass off! That's not true! Sure there may be some occasions that this is true, but it isn't fair to say it happens VERY time.

And wtf?

Who are you to say that? I mean, are you trying to say private schoolers don't work as hard? This is so ill-informed, I don't know where to go with it.

I'm sorry, but what makes you say that? I mean, you do know that some private schools aren't worth their money right?

And tbh, on your last point - it is unfair! That's life! And don't you say I'm not being fair because I'm living proof of it! But tbh, automatic grade inflation isn't going to solve anything. Tbh like you said, in general, a state school has loud classes, bad teachers etc. Well why don't we improve on those things?

Your posts has a large amount of generalisations tbh.

1)It's a generalisation, but it's a majority as well.
2)Private schoolers probably do work as hard, but many because of outside pressure, and also they have better resources and interesting teachers to actually motivate them, whereas in a poor state school it's entirely up to the kid.
3)Some private schools aren't worth the money but the top ones definitely are, and they're the ones who make up like 1/3 of Oxbridge's intake.
4)Yes we should improve on these things, but that will take years, so rather than disadvantaging children till we sort out the problem, I do think the ABB thing is a good temporary solution.

(Original post by Marsha2112)
You'ree basically assuming that an ABB student is incapable of getting AAA. You do realise if you put most ABB state school students in a top private school they'd come out with AAA, and vice versa with private school students. Why do you assume that AAA people from private school are all clever, when in fact they might have IQ 115 and just be pressured from school/parents. While ABB students might have IQ 145 but be sidetracked by bad influences and bad teaching. And why can the private schooler have an easy ride paid for by daddy, while the state schooler has to work their socks off to get to the same spot, even though they might be more capable?

But whilst that student may have a lower IQ, they also, obviously, understand the course better than the student who received ABB.
Also, whilst the ABB student may not be incapable of getting AAA, the didn't! I mean you can't use that excuse really, I mean if you miss the criteria for entrance you can't ring up and say "well, I mucked up in year 13 and only came out with ABB, now, I realise the requirement was AAA, and here on my UCAS track it tells me you've rejected me. That's a joke right, because I am capable of getting an AAA." Getting sidetracked isn't an excuse, they should have just gotten on with it! Hell, people self-teach themselves and come out with great grades, TSR is an example of that.

You're also assuming that all middle school kids go to private school, what about a student who works hard and is middle class and goes to a regular comprehensive? But because their parents earn "too much" they are not given the same treatment as other children.